Dean, Clinton and Kerry: No, No, No for 2008

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait26nov26,1,2936764.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
JONATHAN CHAIT
Dean, Clinton and Kerry: No, No, No for 2008
Democrats, lock these losers out.
Jonathan Chait November 26, 2004

Thanksgiving is traditionally an occasion for Op-Ed columnists to put aside their customary bile and offer up heartfelt thanks for the many blessings that we Americans share. But I say: Heartfelt thanks are what grandmothers are for. I'm going with bile. This week's topic is Candidates Who Obviously Covet the 2008 Democratic Nomination and Who Must Be Stopped at All Costs From Obtaining It.

<snip>Second, Dean argued that Democrats didn't really need to engage the cultural issues that Republicans had long used to win white, working-class voters. Instead, Dean argued, it would be better to persuade culturally traditional whites to vote their economic self-interest. But of course, a candidate can't always decide for the voters what issues they should pay attention to. Economics is complicated. Cultural issues are visceral. The presidential election showed pretty decisively that Democrats can't get a hearing on their more popular economic platform if voters don't think their values are in the right place. A secular Yankee like Dean is about the worst possible candidate. <snip>

Her advisors point out that she's religious and speaks the language of Scripture. That's nice, but nobody seemed to notice it during her eight years in the national spotlight. She's painfully uncharismatic. Her only political accomplishment is that she won a Senate seat in an extremely Democratic state, where she ran six percentage points behind Al Gore. Clinton's supporters like to note that she's not as liberal as people think. That's exactly the problem. I can see the logic behind nominating a liberal whom voters see as moderate. Nominating a moderate whom voters see as liberal is kind of backward, isn't it?

Probably the only worse option than Dean or Clinton, short of nominating Paris Hilton, would be to renominate John Kerry, who, reports have suggested, inexplicably harbors ambitions of running again in 2008. In a previous column I compared Kerry's contribution to his own campaign to an anchor's contribution to a boat race. In retrospect, I seem to have given him far too much credit.<snip>

[Ninga]

1. We have absolutly no control over how the early

primary states vote. This year, it was all over by Iowa.

[Eloriel]

10. That's precisely how the DNC rigged it

It was a conscious decision, sometime back, to compress the primaries so that it would be very hard for an unknown like Carter to sneak up on everybody and win the nomination.
]
This plan, of course, also makes it far easier for the DNC/DLC to actually do the picking, as they used to AND as they did for this election season.

[tk2kewl]

2. Absolutely useless opinion piece

This illustrates a chronic problem with democrats: pointing out our own failings and offering no solutions. This dope should be marginalized.

[Spiffarino]

12. Wrong

He should get his ass kicked, THEN be marginalized.

:nuke:

[NicRic]

3. Alot can change in 4 years !

So with that in mind I agree that Hillary,Dean or Kerry do not look like a good choice for 2008 ! The Clinton haters are still hell bent on saying anything to make more people like them,hate the Clintons. Also Hillary is not Bill ,our last great President. I never thought Dean had a chance to win,not in 2004, or will he in 2008. All nominating Dean would do in 2008, is make so its not nessasary for thew repugs to fix the election for Jeb ! Kerry, well if he comes out B/4 the 2004 election is certified and clearly states how he was ripped off by a fixed election , then I may look at him ,once again ,as someone who would make a good Dem President. I believe ,since it appears that we are stuck with the chimp ,four more years that Edawards may in fact be our best bet . Again I cant stress strongly enough how things can change or can not change at all, unless you can read te future no-one does. A large scandal being covered 24/7 in the news, with many of bushes buddies being charged with crimes ,showing bush as the hipocrite he is,could make alot of moderate repugs ,vote Dem , oh one can only hope and pray that the truth comes out ! Iam not holding my breath !!!!

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

5. Earth to Blue States...

your democracy has gone bonkers 4 years ago.

Discussing presidential candidates makes about sense as much as me pondering what i want to spend my lotto-millions on (i don't play lotto).

If you could please remove bunnypants+co from the big desk , he's playing with the knobs and might eventually find the big red one. But this time US isn't the only one to have nukes, so you might expect some MAD answers.

Spending your time on Halo 2 isn't useful but its fun, plowing water and chasing red herrings serves nothing.

Please and thanks stay safe and well

[Gyre]

6. I totally agree.

Amazing how few dems can really wrap their heads around the implications of stolen elections in '02 and '04.

Gyre

[tom_paine]

8. Yep. The 2008 "election" is already over

The Chosen Bushputinist Candidate has already won.

[Ardee]

4. In dog years

The next Presidential election is a long, long time from now, in political years.My primary concerns are the candidates in the 2006 elections, deciding the makeup of the legislature during the lame duck years of the Bush reign.

Another real concern , for loyal democrats, one might conjecture to be an effort to throw off the leadership that has made the nomination and campaign efforts a travesty and a debacle. Should new leadership be installed between now and the onset of presidential politics who knows what sort of relevant candidate or campaign may be revealed?

[The Zanti Regent]

7. This country cannot be saved. It's time for secession

America has ceased to be America.

It's time to leave!

http://moveoncalifornia.org/index.html

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Ridiculous - Jonathon Chait always rips Dems anyway

It's way too early to write anybody off. Can we please consider this in 2007? Nobody knows how the next 4 years are going to turn out. Who's to say that John Kerry won't emerge as a McCain-like figure, nationally-known and respected? Who's to say that Hillary Clinton won't have 60% approval ratings in 2008 and will be in a position to win nationally? Who's to say that Howard Dean won't have successfully become known to the American people as the thoughtful, common-sense progressive that he is?

Can we go one cycle without ripping each other apart and declaring one or another candidate "a disaster in waiting"? This talk of 2008 is so incredibly premature. The best candidate may well be Kerry. Or Dean. Or Hillary. Or Edwards. Or Clark. Or Bayh. Or Warner. Or Gore. Or somebody knowbody's even mentioning right now.

There will be plenty of time for this kind of thinking in the future. Now, will you let these people do what they want to do? They have the right to run if they want - then it's the decision of primary voters.

[w4rma]

11. Personally I'm for Sen. Edwards and/or Vice President Gore for 2008. (nt)